'Should you be forced to sell your home to pay for long term care?' poll

FATBALLZ

roddydogs wrote: »

Its a stupid poll anyway, as daft as saying "Lets have a poll on wether Incom Tax should be abolished" which would get 99.999% approval.
Of couse if you ask, basically "Would you like something for free" so the Taxpayer will pay for it, you will get most saying "Yes".

What might have been more telling if they'd split the results into over 50s and under 50s. The over 50s (or more generally baby boomers) believe they have a god given right to sponge inordinate amounts of money (far more than they ever paid in) off the next generation for several decades of retirement. Almost all in this category will have voted that care should be taxpayer funded.

People who have to foot the bill, ie the young who are not in line for a big inheritance from their parents/grandparents snuffing it, more probably think these very rich elderly people should pay for themselves.

John_Pierpoint

Here is an interesting link to a story about "a baby boomer" going to jail for performing "deprivation of assets" on behalf of his mother in a care home.

Give it a listen, it is the last 10 minutes of the "You and Yours" podcast as shown in the link from the news story.

Then rush to judgement.:eek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16631052

Torry_Quine

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Here is an interesting link to a story about "a baby boomer" going to jail for performing "deprivation of assets" on behalf of his mother in a care home.

Give it a listen, it is the last 10 minutes of the "You and Yours" podcast as shown in the link from the news story.

Then rush to judgement.:eek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16631052

I do sympathise and don't think a prison sentence was correct but the money was his mother's and it wasn't for him to use it otherwise.

John_Pierpoint

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I do sympathise and don't think a prison sentence was correct but the money was his mother's and it wasn't for him to use it otherwise.

Surely you meant the [STRIKE]money[/STRIKE] compensation was [STRIKE]his mother's[/STRIKE] claimed by the tax payer and it wasn't for him to use it otherwise.

If anyone had complained that his mother had been ripped off, I am sure the criminal law would not have been the least bit interested.

Torry_Quine

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Surely you meant the [STRIKE]money[/STRIKE] compensation was [STRIKE]his mother's[/STRIKE] claimed by the tax payer and it wasn't for him to use it otherwise.

If anyone had complained that his mother had been ripped off, I am sure the criminal law would not have been the least bit interested.

I meant what I said, don't put words in my mouth. However you phrase it what he did was wrong.

John_Pierpoint

You have a very fixed and absolutist attitude to "right" & "wrong".

Definitely a tablets-of-stone man?

Torry_Quine

I'm only saying what the law says that deprivation of assets is wrong. Whether the law is correct is another matter but you can't pick and choose which laws you follow.